1079 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Ziggeh wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
 And the screechy poster was right that it was just thrown out there with nothing to support it.

It didn't need anything to support it, people did hate it. There are no quantities involved in that statement. If more than two people expressed dislike, it's entirely accurate, even if implies a more general sensation.

And I expressed dislike, so we're half way there.

That's a very lawyerly response.  If the question is why they changed a certain aspect of development, is the implication really "well, only a handful of people hated it, but we changed it anyway"?

Modifié par Addai67, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:10 .

[David Gaider]

Ziggeh wrote...
It didn't need anything to support it, people did hate it. There are no quantities involved in that statement. If more than two people expressed dislike, it's entirely accurate, even if implies a more general sensation.

And I expressed dislike, so we're half way there.

I don't think Mike intended to suggest that everyone hated a silent protaganist. And even then, "hate" is a pretty strong word. Better probably to say that it sticks out in a game which has such a strong focus on cinematics. In such a case the protaganist is conspicuously silent.

Do we need to have that focus on cinematics? No, of course not. You can make a game just fine without that. But here we are, and this is what we're doing, and the criticism that the silent protaganist doesn't work happens to be one we agree with-- like with all criticism we're going to evaluate that based on our project's goals and, yes, our own personal preferences. We do have them.

All the criticism in the world doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it happens to ring true with us, so at the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant if everyone feels a certain way, a bunch of them do or just a handful of people on the forums. It's not meant to be insulting, but merely a statement of fact. I'm sure Mike meant it only as evidence that we aren't doing what we're doing absent of outside commentary-- not that it's the only reason we're doing it, or that there's any reason for us to put up charts and graphs and prove anything (in particular for something that's largely subject to taste, anyhow).

Modifié par David Gaider, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:18 .

[Addai]

JohnEpler wrote...

That would be the other part I'm curious about. I can guarantee Mike meant nothing of the sort by that statement, and while I'm always one to allow for misinterpretation, I'm really not certain how this interpretation was arrived at.

If Mike said 'people generally hate pizza with anchovies, jalapenos and italian sausage with spicy tomato sauce on multigrain flat bread', he'd probably be correct. Even though I find that combination to be delicious, I wouldn't be insulted that he said people generally hated it.

Maybe I shouldn't post analogies before I've eaten dinner.

Eww...  stone-fired with a schmier of tomato, lots of garlic, fresh mozarella and a bit of basil please.

Now don't let's get carried away, good sers.  I said "it's even a little insulting" and that was not the gist of my post.  I suppose my thought process is that it assumes those of us who bought and liked Origins for what it is- and the silent protagonist was touted as one of its features, back in the day- don't really know our own minds.  Or that we are not "generally" part of the fanbase.  How does it sound if I say most people who buy.... that disgusting combination of pizza you described... generally hate it?  Can they not read a menu?  Are they really that mercurial?  Did they only think they love anchovies but common sense overcame them?

[Addai]

David Gaider wrote...

All the criticism in the world doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it happens to ring true with us, so at the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant if everyone feels a certain way, a bunch of them do or just a handful of people on the forums. It's not meant to be insulting, but merely a statement of fact. I'm sure Mike meant it only as evidence that we aren't doing what we're doing absent of outside commentary-- not that it's the only reason we're doing it, or that there's any reason for us to put up charts and graphs and prove anything (in particular for something that's largely subject to taste, anyhow).

So, dare I ask, why did you make Origins that way?

[Ziggeh]

Addai67 wrote...

That's a very lawyerly response.  If the question is why they changed a certain aspect of development, is the implication really "well, only a handful of people hated it, but we changed it anyway"?

I admit that that was a very pedantic definition, but I was more highlighting how silly it make that guys use of "most people" in the same paragraph than defending the response.

Realistically though, even if he meant "most people" we don't have anything to support response either way, but I assume he does, and so the only metric we have access to on that matter is his statement itself. Yes, numbers would be more convincing than an offhand comment, but convincing us of their reasoning isn't any sort of goal on their part.

[Piecake]

Addai67 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

That would be the other part I'm curious about. I can guarantee Mike meant nothing of the sort by that statement, and while I'm always one to allow for misinterpretation, I'm really not certain how this interpretation was arrived at.

If Mike said 'people generally hate pizza with anchovies, jalapenos and italian sausage with spicy tomato sauce on multigrain flat bread', he'd probably be correct. Even though I find that combination to be delicious, I wouldn't be insulted that he said people generally hated it.

Maybe I shouldn't post analogies before I've eaten dinner.

Now don't let's get carried away, good sers.  I said "it's even a little insulting" and that was not the gist of my post.  I suppose my thought process is that it assumes those of us who bought and liked Origins for what it is- and the silent protagonist was touted as one of its features, back in the day- don't really know our own minds.  Or that we are not "generally" part of the fanbase.  How does it sound if I say most people who buy.... that disgusting combination of pizza you described... generally hate it?  Can they not read a menu?  Are they really that mercurial?  Did they only think they love anchovies but common sense overcame them?

Well, good thing he said nothing like that, because if he did, then you'd actually have a point. 

Honestly, it sounds like you are reading way too much into his sentence or seeing what you want to see.

[Ruby Tabris]

"It's a particularly interesting choice because one of your earliest party members is your sibling (your brother or sister, depending on what class you chose), and as you might expect, a whole lot of baggage comes with them."



Sorry not sure if this has been answered here yet ot not but I was wondering if we only get to have one sibling around permenently or not? Is it possible to have them both stick with you permenently?

[David Gaider]

Addai67 wrote...
So, dare I ask, why did you make Origins that way?

There was a point where we toyed with having a voiced protaganist in Origins, actually. We went as far as to test it out, but in the end decided against it. Once the cinematics were further along, I think we regretted it mainly because it didn't have the effect we intended, something that was reinforced when we showed the game to the public.

Did it still work in DAO? I think it did. I don't mind a silent protaganist, myself, but it certainly does stick out amidst all the cinematic dialogue. In this case between our own feelings on the subject and some of the criticism we felt it was worth changing direction.

Could Mike have said all of that? He may in fact have said more on the topic, or maybe he didn't intend to go on an entire lawyer-like diatribe to try and justify something to people who were bound to disagree with the idea anyhow. Even so, he was not wrong and I wouldn't try to read more into his words than what he said.

Modifié par David Gaider, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[HolyJellyfish]

Having a silent protagonist offers a lot more in the way of dialogue choices, conversation, multiple character backgrounds, etc. I don't have an issue with it, but it is quickly becoming an outdated system in the greater scheme of RPGs and the direction they are currently heading.



The only major issue that I can see a lot of devs falling back on is VA choice for the PC. That can be incredibly difficult, especially when you are trying to convey the voice of a character a lot of people are branding in their own unique way. And it has to be a VA that is incredibly dynamic as well. I could be wrong, but that has always been my worry and impression.

[Brockololly]

JohnEpler wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Addai67 wrote...


It is obviously not hindering them.  So, where's all the hate?

I get that some people like it.  I can even get that the devs like it better so they want to make their game that way.  But dissing your own game and at least a portion of the fanbase to sell the new game, that seems counter-productive to me.  Insulting, even.  And the screechy poster was right that it was just thrown out there with nothing to support it.

How is saying that "People generally hated the silent protaganist" insulting to the people who liked that feature?

That would be the other part I'm curious about. I can guarantee Mike meant nothing of the sort by that statement, and while I'm always one to allow for misinterpretation, I'm really not certain how this interpretation was arrived at.

Maybe its not "insulting," but its worrisome that one would think that "generally people hated the silent protagonist." I just think thats flat out wrong- thats like saying "Generally people hated  the isometric camera and tactical combat in Origins" or "Generally  people hated the voiced PC and dialogue wheel in ME2." And to make a statement like that when one of the more notable changes from Origins is the voiced PC and dialogue wheel?

If you're going to make a blanket statement like people "generally hating the silent protagonist" you've got back it up somehow. Hate is a very, very strong word. I'd imagine that Mike knows that for a good number of people the Silent Protagonist was one of the key "spiritual successor to BG" features that people really enjoyed in Origins. I sure did! Its why despite enjoying ME, I don't really give a damn about Shepard or the crew- he's just another NPC that you're directing, you're not actually controlling Shep like you could the Warden.

And so when the Lead Designer for a game uses such a strong word as "hate" to describe one of the primary, defining features of Origins, in comparison to other current BioWare games, especially knowing that the switch to a voiced PC is implicit in most of the "Dragon Effect" claims- its just not a very smooth way of handling things. Especially when on one hand you're saying that you're keeping all the great stuff about Origins, just making it better and telling people not to worry, and on the other hand saying how "generally" people "hated" one of the core RPG features of Origins.

Did everyone like the silent PC? Of course not. But when the Lead Designer makes such a strong worded and blanket statement such as that, combined with how every BioWare game (DA2, TOR and ME3) will be using the same "cinematic, paraphrased dialogue wheel, voiced PC approach" thats worrisome to me, as the primary reason I enjoyed Origins as much as I did and gave a damn about my Warden PC and the characters was because I didn't have some droll voice actor barging in and regurgitating back the dialogue. Its just extraordinarily disappointing and disheartening to seemingly see all AAA BioWare games simply adopt the same approach to storytelling, one which based on my time with ME, I don't find particularly engaging- if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go to the movies.

And given that Mike made such a strong worded and blanket statement like that, it doesn't exactly instill much faith in me that we'll see an improved Silent PC approach in the future, but rather we'll simply see more BioWare games stick with some homogeneized "cinematic"  voiced PC, 20 hour game angle. Its that loss of diversity in storytelling approaches that bothers me most.

Modifié par Brockololly, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[Drasanil]

David Gaider wrote...
Do we need to have that focus on cinematics? No, of course not. You can make a game just fine without that. But here we are, and this is what we're doing, and the criticism that the silent protaganist doesn't work happens to be one we agree with-- like with all criticism we're going to evaluate that based on our project's goals and, yes, our own personal preferences. We do have them.

So do you agree with the criticism that forcing a human protagonist is off putting?

I'd rather put up with a touch of wierdness like the wrong accent (which should be a regional as opposed to racial characteristic any ways, we both know newfies sound nothing like albertans) and some shoe-horning, if it ment I actually got to play a protagonist I had an interest in. I love your stories, but half my interest goes right out the door when I'm faced with a protagonists I don't really care about. Which is pretty much the case with being forced to play a human in a fantasy setting.

Modifié par Drasanil, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[Dagiz]

Ruby Tabris wrote...

"It's a particularly interesting choice because one of your earliest party members is your sibling (your brother or sister, depending on what class you chose), and as you might expect, a whole lot of baggage comes with them."

Sorry not sure if this has been answered here yet ot not but I was wondering if we only get to have one sibling around permenently or not? Is it possible to have them both stick with you permenently?

Yes, its a matter of which class you are...I can't recall who is with what class, but its somewhere...and it's late and to be honest, I just don't have it in me to look through pages of posts to find the direct quote.  But if you have more patience than I do now, it is somehwere.

[Dagiz]

Drasanil wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
Do we need to have that focus on cinematics? No, of course not. You can make a game just fine without that. But here we are, and this is what we're doing, and the criticism that the silent protaganist doesn't work happens to be one we agree with-- like with all criticism we're going to evaluate that based on our project's goals and, yes, our own personal preferences. We do have them.

So do you agree with the criticism that forcing a human protagonist is off putting?

I'd rather put up with a touch of wierdness like the wrong accent (which should be a regional as opposed to racial characteristic any ways, we both know newfies sound nothing like albertans) and some shoe-horning, if it ment I actually got to play a protagonist I had an interest in. I love your stories, but half my interest goes right out the door when I'm faced with a protagonists I don't really care about. Which is pretty much the case with being forced to play a human in a fantasy setting.

Alright, but can you accept the fact that for this paticular aspect of the game, this part of the story that we are going through that it is necssary?  That the only way the story works here in this particular installement is if the protagonist is human? 

That is what I  see a lot of arguing over nothing.  It's been stated time and time again that for this installment, the main character is human.  Just like if you read a book, the main character is one race.  You don't get to pick and choose what race you are.

[Merci357]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think silent protagonists have a place, but maybe its not at the heart of choice and cinematic driven games anymore.

This, of all the paragraphs written in this thread, condenses my opinion. I don't mind a silent protagonist, at all. But it feels out of place in cinematic games that rely heavily on visuals to tell the story.

Modifié par Merci357, 23 décembre 2010 - 04:53 .

[Ruby Tabris]

Dagiz wrote...

Ruby Tabris wrote...

"It's a particularly interesting choice because one of your earliest party members is your sibling (your brother or sister, depending on what class you chose), and as you might expect, a whole lot of baggage comes with them."

Sorry not sure if this has been answered here yet ot not but I was wondering if we only get to have one sibling around permenently or not? Is it possible to have them both stick with you permenently?

Yes, its a matter of which class you are...I can't recall who is with what class, but its somewhere...and it's late and to be honest, I just don't have it in me to look through pages of posts to find the direct quote.  But if you have more patience than I do now, it is somehwere.

I don't have any patience in me actually but thanks so much for helping me clear that up. I'm really not looking forward to havnig to choose. The game isn't even released and bioware has me getting goosebumps.

[Leonia]

Drasanil wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
Do we need to have that focus on cinematics? No, of course not. You can make a game just fine without that. But here we are, and this is what we're doing, and the criticism that the silent protaganist doesn't work happens to be one we agree with-- like with all criticism we're going to evaluate that based on our project's goals and, yes, our own personal preferences. We do have them.

So do you agree with the criticism that forcing a human protagonist is off putting?

I'd rather put up with a touch of wierdness like the wrong accent (which should be a regional as opposed to racial characteristic any ways, we both know newfies sound nothing like albertans) and some shoe-horning, if it ment I actually got to play a protagonist I had an interest in. I love your stories, but half my interest goes right out the door when I'm faced with a protagonists I don't really care about. Which is pretty much the case with being forced to play a human in a fantasy setting.

You don't know Hawke yet, how do you know you won't care about him? His race shouldn't affect his level of "interestingness" (Somehow I am reminded of the debate over non-humans as romance options).

He did say you aren't forced to do anything, it's not like there are all these options at the beginning and Bioware moves your cursor over to the Human Common Origin when you were trying to click on Dalish Elf Origin.

Either you give Hawke a chance or you don't.

[Addai]

David Gaider wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
So, dare I ask, why did you make Origins that way?

There was a point where we toyed with having a voiced protaganist in Origins, actually. We went as far as to test it out, but in the end decided against it. Once the cinematics were further along, I think we regretted it mainly because it didn't have the effect we intended, something that was reinforced when we showed the game to the public.

Puzzling.  But, as you say.  We bought the game because of its promise as a BG successor (the marital unit did, to be specific) and that was part of it, one I'll miss.  Voiced PCs just don't have the same punch and it takes away from the whole game for me.

Ah well.  I can't get a good pizza in California, either (thanks for reminding me, Epler!).  But at least there are flights to New York.  Nobody but Bethesda is on the Island of Silent PCs anymore. 

[Drasanil]

Dagiz wrote...
Alright, but can you accept the fact that for this paticular aspect of the game, this part of the story that we are going through that it is necssary?  That the only way the story works here in this particular installement is if the protagonist is human? 

No I don't accept that it is necessary, that's the basic premise of my argument, it may work best with a human PC which is fine. I doubt it's strictly necessary, we know how will meet his extended family in Kirkwall and that they're human, that's cool but with a bit of shoe-horning it could be made to work with an elf or a dwarf. Your noble human uncle, could actually be just your noble human half-uncle if you're an elf buy way of your grandmother and his father's "noble priviledge", while a dwarf can't be a mage he could still be adopted or what ever. It's not perfect but it's still better than having no option, at least as far as I'm concerned.

That is what I  see a lot of arguing over nothing.  It's been stated time and time again that for this installment, the main character is human.  Just like if you read a book, the main character is one race.  You don't get to pick and choose what race you are.

A book isn't an RPG or a video game. It's more constrained in some ways and less so in others.

leonia42 wrote...
You don't know Hawke yet, how do you know you won't care about him? His race shouldn't affect his level of "interestingness" (Somehow I am reminded of the debate over non-humans as romance options).

I think I'm old enough to know my own preferences thanks. No matter how much I like a given story or what not I simply can't stand being forced to play a human in a a western RPG, I got past Act II in the Witcher and simply stopped caring, I never bothered with Two Worlds past the first few hours. Conversly I can't stand playing aliens, or even being tolerate and/or understanding if they're the least bit annoying, in Sci-fi stuff for some reason... must be my exposure to 40k and GRIMDARK. 

Modifié par Drasanil, 23 décembre 2010 - 05:03 .

[David Gaider]

Drasanil wrote...
So do you agree with the criticism that forcing a human protagonist is off putting?

Not really, no. I know there are some folks who think it might be off-putting, but they haven't played the game yet. They're imagining what it might be like and reacting to that, or looking at it only in comparison to Origins (which had its own issues, even though I'm sure many here enjoyed the game despite them). Some of the best RPG's I have ever played "forced" you to be human, or even a set character.

Once people have actually played the game I think we'll be look at any criticism then for constructive feedback. As always, it'll be measured against our own opinions on the subject.

I'd rather put up with a touch of wierdness like the wrong accent (which should be a regional as opposed to racial characteristic any ways, we both know newfies sound nothing like albertans) and some shoe-horning, if it ment I actually got to play a protagonist I had an interest in. I love your stories, but half my interest goes right out the door when I'm faced with a protagonists I don't really care about. Which is pretty much the case with being forced to play a human in a fantasy setting.

Fair enough. Personally I see nothing intrinsically amazing about a non-human character-- beyond the fact that some people are apparently so jaded they'll long for something different just for the sake of it being different... even if that difference is only superficial. I can understand that desire, but I can't respect it. Sorry.

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...
And given that Mike made such a strong worded and blanket statement like that, it doesn't exactly instill much faith in me that we'll see an improved Silent PC approach in the future, but rather we'll simply see more BioWare games stick with some homogeneized "cinematic"  voiced PC, 20 hour game angle. Its that loss of diversity in storytelling approaches that bothers me most. 

And maybe they won't make the kind of games you like best anymore. Maybe they never liked what you like about RPGs in the first place. Mike might have made a Kinsley gaffe here.

[HolyJellyfish]

I don't know. One interview seemed to put out the human protagonist in a really fascinating way. As the Human Commoner origins story missing from DA:O. I can totally respect that point of view.



As for multiple races, I get the impression in DA:O it was a good tool to learn about the cultures and lifestyles of almost everyone who occupied that universe. Almost everyone. DA2 seems to be less about exploring that universe and more about the main story involved in the world at large.

[Atakuma]

Addai67 wrote...
 Nobody but Bethesda is on the Island of Silent PCs anymore. 

That is because bethesda aren't interested in cinematics or even story for that matter.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
rolling Shep like you could the Warden.

And so when the Lead Designer for a game uses such a strong word as "hate" to describe one of the primary, defining features of Origins, in comparison to other current BioWare games, especially knowing that the switch to a voiced PC is implicit in most of the "Dragon Effect" claims- its just not a very smooth way of handling things. Especially when on one hand you're saying that you're keeping all the great stuff about Origins, just making it better and telling people not to worry, and on the other hand saying how "generally" people "hated" one of the core RPG features of Origins.

But that is the problem. We can't, even on this forum, come to any reasonable understanding about this. The forum here swings very heavily toward the old Black Isle early 2000s era RPGs, but I doubt you'd find more than a roughly 50/50 split on silent VO - at most 60/40.

Who knows what the general public thinks?

But if a consistent part of your feedback is ''ought to have had PC VO,'' I think that can lead you to the conclusions players actively disliked it.

I don't think Mike meant anything more by hate that just an off the cuff comment. He doesn't seem like a naturally political sort of guy.

Addai67 wrote...
Puzzling.  But, as you say.  We bought the
game because of its promise as a BG successor (the marital unit did, to
be specific) and that was part of it, one I'll miss.  Voiced PCs just
don't have the same punch and it takes away from the whole game for me.

Keep in mind that while DA:O was introduced as such, ME was introduced as the spiritual succesor of KoTOR. I really don't think Bioware means what people think they mean by that.

I would bet they used the word spirit precisely to give the idea they're going to preserve what they thought was the creative drive behind the game, and not many of its actual features, i.e. space opera for ME2 and medieval fantasy for DA:O.

[Addai]

leonia42 wrote...

You don't know Hawke yet, how do you know you won't care about him? His race shouldn't affect his level of "interestingness" (Somehow I am reminded of the debate over non-humans as romance options).

He did say you aren't forced to do anything, it's not like there are all these options at the beginning and Bioware moves your cursor over to the Human Common Origin when you were trying to click on Dalish Elf Origin.

Either you give Hawke a chance or you don't.

Humans are more dull to me, too, in a fantasy game where we were once offered the option to play the other races.  If you already know the theme, it's hardly a stretch to say you're not as interested in the humans of Thedas as an elf or dwarf (or Qunari- not to open a can of worms).  Plus just in general it restricts player choice so much compared to Origins, regardless of how you feel about Hawke in particular.